Spears are better than swords: scientific proof

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

fsmoura : of course the spear is better . . . it has more penetration

Mr. Chiweeni : Another plus, my wooden spear gets through airport scanners everytime.

Duminic The Dumb : Right. Good information. Now then, off on the crusades

flipdart : Cost of a spear - one wooden shaft, one six inch pig iron spearhead - which is optional. Cost of a sword - three feet or so of the best available steel. You can use other metals but they tend to be heavy, brittle and don't keep their edge. You could equip ten spearmen for every swordsman, with no more training needed than "Stand in line, keep your spears up, shield forward!" There are good reasons massed spear formations were THE basic units of armies for three or four thousand years.

stimpsonjcat67 : Lack of proper spears in "The Walking Dead" was the main reason I stopped watching it. Well, that and the wife getting sick of me shouting "A spear would have helped!" at the screen for the 2 seasons we watched it.

The Modern Hermeticist : but muh only 1d6 damage

Ajuć 00 : The fact that spear victories were quick and sword victories were messy and longer means that in group fight spearmen that won are done quicker and can help their friends, while swordsmen that would have won were still busy with their first opponent. That's probably a big factor explaining why in formation spears are much better. Time to kill is an important metric, totally ignored when just counting wins and loses in duels.

NoStressMike : I did hand to hand close quarters combat in the Vietnam war, as a U.S. Marine. I held my ground and they would attack in human waves by running at or close to me trying to bayonet me or swing something (rifle, machete, or entrenching tool). Seldom would we go one on one because you have a better chance of dying (as you dimastrated). By running by, they would swing or lunge at me at the flank and move on to the next one and may be fight another day. Wouldn't that be a smarter and more realistic way of using hand held ancient weapons? Mike

Marvin Kitfox : This is not a test of sword vs. spear. . It is a test of rubber dildoes vs. spear, 1-vs-1 only, on a manicured flat lawn. . . . The advantages of spear are: Reach, low cost of weapon compared to swords, reach, reduced training need for the fighter, reach, and most importantly reach. The *dis*advantages of spears are: can only be combined with shield if fighter is basically immobile, and has side protection.(defensive formations) Very, very, extremely vulnerable to missile weapons. Very prone to tangling with obstacles.

ANDREW STOUT : I don't think your swordsmen know how to use their sword. Their biggest problem seems to be closing range. The Romans had a plenty easy enough time dealing with spearmen, and they had a shorter sword than what you're using, while using a shield properly . If you want a historical matchup, look at Murmillos vs Renenarii : classic Gladiator match of armored swordsmen with buckler vs Spearman with Net. It wasn't considered an uneven match.

fsmoura : Better than swords, ok, but _NOT_ katanas . . . Katanas are so superior it's borderline magical. Scientists are still trying to understand why.

Giacomo Meluzzi : Romans showed that a sword can be a superior weapon, provided that your army is super disciplined and trained. There's something about closing the distance while completely covered by your shield that makes a short weapon better . Of course most kingdoms couldn't afford or didn't have the military culture to train at such extent so many soldiers, and this is also why in the darkest times for the empire they switched back to the spears and longer swords.

Venomine : In unarmored combat, sure. But spears are difficult to be precise with. In armored combat, where you either need to pierce through armor or get your weapon into weak spots between plates, the sword will win. Also, real swords can cut the tips off of spears. There are MANY advantages that a sword would have in real combat that aren't being taken into account here.

Christopher Peery : This looks so fun. I wanna join

Peter Philipson : Good video, but this kind of videos... their topic doesent makes much sense. Compare a sword to a spear, axe to a sword, european sword vs katana, sword and shield or axe and shield and maces but why?? I could go on the "matchups", but I dont get why people dont understand on the basis every weapon specialized to a certain task. One weapon better to smash your skull, the other cuts you in half, the other stabs you, another punctures you whole body armor and making it useless and so on. Comparing them is pointless like a dull sword because there is no universally "best" weapon in their own era. I noticed there is a shorter version of this video. Well, I just copied my comment from the long version of this video.

Tadicuslegion78 : Medieval Sergeant: Do you know how to use that thing? Lindy: Yeah, pointy end goes into the other man

Tom Smith : Wouldn’t a sword cut through the spear though...?

MossManMick : But you cannot end him rightly with a spear... Swords > Spears

Static Raizore : We all know the Bo Staff is the way to go

Christopher Peery : Thats not a shield, thats a plate 3:15

Mikosch2 : You what is funny? When you scroll through the news and find a headline "Stabbing: Four injured at university" and right afterward you get an alert for a new video "Spears are better than swords. Scientific proof."

Nicholas : cute shield

Training Grounds : You have to hold the spear at it's center of balance if you are wielding it one handed. You lose distance but gain damage and the shield is for the distance lost. Also there is no reason why you cannot slash with a spear especially if you are dealing with low armored combatants. The major way to defeat the spear in close combat is to wait for them to thrust and to grab the spear by the neck with your other hand. You can do this without any weapons at all.

Branden Seeger : Just throwing this out there. OF COURSE CLOSING DISTANCE WITH AN ENEMY SPEAR IS DIFFICULT WITHOUT A SHIELD or BUCKLER. duh! Swords are a status of nobility, but it's ignorant to say one's better than the other. The reason they were "status symbols" at all is because they were expensive to craft, just like plate armor. Spears, Axes, and etc. use much less metal than a sword does.

pogimax : You'd think spears being the go-to weapon for ancient warfare would be patently obvious, since the point (some pun intended) of sharp weapons was to get your weapon into your opponent while keeping yourself from the other's weapon. In that regard, the spear's longer reach affords one better survivability than swords. Spears are also cheaper to make (at worst, you can just use a very long piece of wood with a pointy end--yes, it's a pike, but similar idea). Finally, utilizing spears doesn't have as steep of a learning curve compared to swords.

Daniel Federico : I sort of no longer care what results you got. That looks like immense fun.

PabloC4 : 4:50 Did not work because it was not ifused with chaos.

Apple Lysol : Sword are like pistols speers are like rifles

commonberus1 : In real life would not spears run the risk of having their shaft cut by the sword?

Normund : There's another most common weapon used that has been forgotten. THE ROCK!

Alan Błaszczyński : Some time ago I've met a quite interesting person at reenacting festival with dueling tournament. Danish guy named Allan, that was fighting with spear. Yes, even in 1v1 tournament, so he was on huge disadvantage (also was the only one fighting without sword and big shield). Aand... He used strange tactic - he fought two handed with a spear, but holding seax knife - sometimes hitting with his spear, he mostly put his spear tip on the ground and used it as a "shield" (quickly backing it up if enemy tried to stomp on it), and than releasing one hand and hitting with knife held in it. Impressive, as he scored 2nd place in the whole tournament.

Brennen Yu : This is why the Roman Centurions with their shield formation and spears were almost unstoppable.

NoOneGetzOutAlive : in regards to one-on-one combat this might be considered scientific if any one of your combatants had an ounce of skill with a sword or spear. It's like a bunch of dorky larpers.

N'zoth The Corruptor : Armor changes everything in those combats

Derpimus Maximus : Alternative tests(not shown) Bren gun 30, spears 0.

Bleeb : I choose gun

mam162 : Another great advantage of spears--they were great for deterring cavalry charges, since horses had no interest in getting impaled. They're not nearly as cool as swords, but they sure are effective.

Alex Soetekouw Productions : Throw the buckler like a frisbee to thro him off.

Jack Anderson : Stone Age > Medieval Age. -Where is the Logic behind that!-

Martin Mörsch : I remember now, that when we played with Wooden swords as kids, sometimes someone would pick up a much, much longer stick, and you just felt helpless against it... I guess a Spear really also had a psychological effect on its enemies.... would you want to charge against these many long, and very pointy spears?

Lagoon Lake : Double tipped spear vs dual wield swords

Jack Flannigan : I have a question regarding the type of shields at 7:30. Were they held by only one handle or there was also a brace for your elbow? thank you in advance

re hash : The next trend in home defence?

Phuubz : I prefer a spear. The extra length is excellent when parading a severed head around.

Torin Jones : That's why most people used both. Swords were a side arm afterall.

Glenn G : Please do a video about the Swiss Hellebard. Most powerful weapon in the medieval time and used by the Swiss to defeat larger armies with superior armors.

chipmunk Luke Skywalker : I feel like a large axe may be the best weapon, or even a small one. That way you just run right at swords and spears and if you can surprise them an axe is probably the best for up close combat.

Rohit Behere : 2:42 why is it always the groin???- dying warrior's last words XD

Kellen Brinton : Also the spear has the advantage that all you need to have is the metal head, and a long shaft of wood which is easy to get if you have a lot of trees, while a sword requires the entire blade, which is probably more metal

larz anthony : An aggressive pusher with a big shield would be able to defeat a spearman.